Publication:
Group 1 ITI Consensus Report: The influence of implant length and design and medications on clinical and patient-reported outcomes

dc.contributor.authorRonald E. Jungen_US
dc.contributor.authorBilal Al-Nawasen_US
dc.contributor.authorMauricio Araujoen_US
dc.contributor.authorGustavo Avila-Ortizen_US
dc.contributor.authorStephen Barteren_US
dc.contributor.authorNadine Brodalaen_US
dc.contributor.authorVivianne Chappuisen_US
dc.contributor.authorBo Chenen_US
dc.contributor.authorAndre De Souzaen_US
dc.contributor.authorRicardo Faria Almeidaen_US
dc.contributor.authorStefan Ficklen_US
dc.contributor.authorGary Finelleen_US
dc.contributor.authorJeffrey Ganelesen_US
dc.contributor.authorHadi Gholamien_US
dc.contributor.authorChristoph Hammerleen_US
dc.contributor.authorSimon Jensenen_US
dc.contributor.authorAsbjørn Jokstaden_US
dc.contributor.authorHideaki Katsuyamaen_US
dc.contributor.authorJohannes Kleinheinzen_US
dc.contributor.authorChatchai Kunavisaruten_US
dc.contributor.authorNikos Mardasen_US
dc.contributor.authorAlberto Monjeen_US
dc.contributor.authorPanos Papaspyridakosen_US
dc.contributor.authorMichael Payeren_US
dc.contributor.authorEik Schiegnitzen_US
dc.contributor.authorRalf Smeetsen_US
dc.contributor.authorMartina Stefaninien_US
dc.contributor.authorChristiaan ten Bruggenkateen_US
dc.contributor.authorKonstantinos Vazourasen_US
dc.contributor.authorHans Peter Weberen_US
dc.contributor.authorDieter Weingarten_US
dc.contributor.authorPéter Windischen_US
dc.contributor.otherKlinikum Stuttgart Katharinenhospitalen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversitat Internacional de Catalunyaen_US
dc.contributor.otherTufts University School of Dental Medicineen_US
dc.contributor.otherJohannes Gutenberg Universität Mainzen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversidade Estadual de Maringaen_US
dc.contributor.otherAlma Mater Studiorum Università di Bolognaen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversidad Complutense de Madriden_US
dc.contributor.otherSemmelweis Egyetemen_US
dc.contributor.otherBarts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistryen_US
dc.contributor.otherUiT The Arctic University of Norwayen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversity of Bernen_US
dc.contributor.otherNova Southeastern Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversity of Torontoen_US
dc.contributor.otherCopenhagen University Hospitalen_US
dc.contributor.otherPeking Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherMahidol Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherJulius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburgen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversity of Zurichen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversidade do Portoen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversitätsklinikum Münsteren_US
dc.contributor.otherMedizinische Universität Grazen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversity of Iowa College of Dentistryen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf und Medizinische Fakultäten_US
dc.contributor.otherTokyo Medical and Dental Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherAmsterdam UMC - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdamen_US
dc.contributor.otherGary Finelleen_US
dc.contributor.otherPrivate Practiceen_US
dc.contributor.otherFlorida Institute for Periodontics and Dental Implantsen_US
dc.contributor.otherPrivate Practiceen_US
dc.date.accessioned2019-08-23T11:00:39Z
dc.date.available2019-08-23T11:00:39Z
dc.date.issued2018-10-01en_US
dc.description.abstract© 2018 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants Research Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Objectives: The aim of Working Group 1 was to address the influence of different local (implant length, diameter, and design) and systemic (medications) factors on clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes in implant dentistry. Focused questions on (a) short posterior dental implants (≤6 mm), (b) narrow diameter implants, (c) implant design (tapered compared to a non-tapered implant design), and (d) medication-related dental implant failures were addressed. Materials and methods: Four systematic reviews were prepared in advance of the Consensus Conference and were discussed among the participants of Group 1. Consensus statements, clinical recommendations, and recommendations for future research were based on structured group discussions until consensus was reached among the entire expert Group 1. The statements were then presented and accepted following further discussion and modifications as required by the plenary. Results: Short implants (≤6 mm) revealed a survival rate ranging from 86.7% to 100%, whereas standard implant survival rate ranged from 95% to 100% with a follow-up from 1 to 5 years. Short implants demonstrated a higher variability and a higher Risk Ratio [RR: 1.24 (95% CI: 0.63, 2.44, p = 0.54)] for failure compared to standard implants. Narrow diameter implants (NDI) have been classified into three categories: Category 1: Implants with a diameter of <2.5 mm (“Mini-implants”); Category 2: Implants with a diameter of 2.5 mm to <3.3 mm; Category 3: Implants with a diameter of 3.3 mm to 3.5 mm. Mean survival rates were 94.7 ± 5%, 97.3 ± 5% and 97.7 ± 2.3% for category 1, 2 and 3. Tapered versus non-tapered implants demonstrated only insignificant differences regarding clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes. The intake of certain selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and proton pump inhibitors is associated with a statistically significant increased implant failure rate. The intake of bisphosphonates related to the treatment of osteoporosis was not associated with an increased implant failure rate. Conclusions: It is concluded that short implants (≤6 mm) are a valid option in situations of reduced bone height to avoid possible morbidity associated with augmentation procedures; however, they reveal a higher variability and lower predictability in survival rates. Narrow diameter implants with diameters of 2.5 mm and more demonstrated no difference in implant survival rates compared to standard diameter implants. In contrast, it is concluded that narrow diameter implants with diameters of less than 2.5 mm exhibited lower survival rates compared to standard diameter implants. It is further concluded that there are no differences between tapered versus non-tapered dental implants. Certain medications such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and proton pump inhibitors showed an association with a higher implant failure rate.en_US
dc.identifier.citationClinical Oral Implants Research. Vol.29, (2018), 69-77en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/clr.13342en_US
dc.identifier.issn16000501en_US
dc.identifier.issn09057161en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85055052227en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/45699
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85055052227&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectDentistryen_US
dc.titleGroup 1 ITI Consensus Report: The influence of implant length and design and medications on clinical and patient-reported outcomesen_US
dc.typeReviewen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85055052227&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections